Promoting strong public schools for Providence\’s East Side and beyond

ESPEC letter to Mayor Cicilline

The steering committee sent the letter below to the Mayor on May 31, outlining ESPEC’s priorities for the upcoming decsion on renovation or new construction for Nathan Bishop.

May 31, 2007

HAND DELIVERY

The Honorable David Cicilline
Mayor, City of Providence
Providence City Hall, 2nd Floor

Dear Mayor Cicilline:

At a series of public meetings held at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, the Providence School Department and the City have presented information about possible designs for the New Nathan Bishop Middle School. At those meetings, we learned that the architect (AI3) and construction manager (Gilbane) would develop an analysis of the two top alternatives (renovation and new construction) to provide the basis on which a choice could be made. We learned that the analysis would compare the alternatives across many dimensions, including education quality, cost, environmental issues and construction timetable. We also learned that the architect would be consulting with other groups, such as the Providence Preservation Society (PPS) for input concerning these alternatives.

At the most recent public meeting in mid-April, we were told that the analysis would be complete in early May, and that a decision would follow a few weeks after that. Unlike PPS, which has a set agenda, the East Side Public Education Coalition has not taken a formal position advocating for one of these alternatives before knowing the results of the architect’s and contractor’s analysis. We believe that any “knee jerk” reaction that focuses only on a single dimension would not produce sound public policy. Instead, it has been our hope to review the architect’s and construction manager’s analysis so that our position could be consistent with our own constituency’s goals and the broader goals of public education in the City.

As the weeks have passed without the presentation of this analysis and comparison of alternatives, we have become concerned about our ability to provide input into the decision before it is made. As a result, we write to inform you of which issues are most important to our group, so that you can consider them even as the premises of our final position are still being developed.

Our group’s position begins with an acknowledgment that the City has engaged an architect and construction manager who inspire very high levels of confidence. Even without knowing the specifics of the comparison, we are convinced that either alternative will lead to the construction of a school that will feature quality design and construction, will incorporate environmental and energy efficiencies, and will be compatible with the neighborhood.

With that said, we expect that the two alternatives will present differences along several key dimensions, and our group has a clear view that some of these dimensions are more

important than others. For us, the top three issues (in descending order) are educational quality, timing and cost. We appreciate the opportunity to explain the basis for our position.

A. Educational Quality

It is our view that the most important standard by which to measure the design alternatives is the quality of the education that the school can support for the children who use it. From AI3’s presentation, it is clear that the two design alternatives will affect the interior layout of the building, which could affect educational quality in such areas as the development of smaller learning communities within the school and the overall compatibility of the facility with the mission of educating middle school aged children. Educational quality also can be measured in the quality of the building’s non-academic areas, such as its gymnasium, cafeteria and auditorium. At the end of the day, the East Side Public Education Coalition is most concerned with the adoption of a school design that best supports the school’s educational mission.

B. Timing

Another important consideration for our group is timing. We believe that it is critical for the New Nathan Bishop to open in the Fall of 2009 if it is at all humanly possible. Over the past year, our neighborhood has witnessed a remarkable resurgence of interest in public education. Just last week, the Providence Public Schools announced the opening of a third kindergarten class at the Vartan Gregorian Elementary School as part of this trend. Our email list contains hundreds of interested parents and community members, and behind them stand hundreds more who are watching the progress of this new school with a combination of hope and anxiety. It has been decades since our neighborhood has had a well-functioning middle school, and now we have no middle school at all. We could lose everything we gain if we go too much longer without a school to serve a population hopeful about the future, but disappointed by the struggles of the Old Nathan Bishop. If one of these alternatives will provide a clearer path to opening the New Nathan Bishop in the Fall of 2009, our group will consider that a significant advantage.

C. Cost

Our constituency’s third consideration is the cost of the New Nathan Bishop and its impact on the City’s overall facilities plan. We do not believe that it would be fair to the rest of the City to spend a disproportionate share of the overall construction budget on a single school unless a clear educational benefit would result. We also are concerned about the relationship between cost and timing, as a larger construction budget may require a longer funding cycle, given the District’s other construction and funding needs. For that reason, we do not believe that a single priority, particularly one unrelated to educational quality, should lead to a substantial additional cost for the New Nathan Bishop.

We hope that our views will assist you and your office in weighing the alternatives presented, and we thank you for your consideration.